similar to: [LLVMdev] PATCH (llvm-bcanalyzer.cpp) "bytecode" --> "bitcode"

I did this short experiment: ggreif at my [!297] cd /home/ggreif/llvm ggreif at my [!298] find . -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep bytecode | wc -l 143 I guess these are a quick prey for perl's in-place replace. But wait! There are more: ggreif at my [!299] find . -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep -i bytecode | wc -l 291 probably all of the rest is "Bytecode"

Chad, Yes it helps, thanks. I have started hacking bitcode-analyzer. ---ajonwa ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Rosier Sent: 11/05/11 09:07 PM To: ajonwa ajonwa Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Enable Detailed Output llvm-bcanalyzer ajonwa, It will provide some of the information you're seeking, but not all. Here's a partial dump from one of the bitcode test cases:

Here come the not-so-obvious (i.e. more risky) changes. OK to commit? [In case I went too far, I have a less offensive variant too.] Now I am seeing: # of expected passes 2092 # of unexpected failures 5 # of expected failures 3 but they do not come from this area of mine. Cheers, Gabor PS: the isCompressed flag seems redundant now, but I did not check. Also, I

Hi, Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> writes: > Maybe you can use the already available "include/llvm/Support/Format.h"? Thanks, that simplifies the patch a lot. See the attached patch. Btw, llvm-bcanalyzer.cpp seems to also use fprintf -- does mixing it with errs() cause problems and should it be converted to use format()? best regards, Timo Lindfors

When you do $ llvm-bcanalyzer hello.o | less you won't see anything, because bcanalyzer sends all of it's output to stderr. However, it get's it right when asked for help: $ llvm-bcanalyzer --help | less

Hello, llvm-bcanalyzer told me that the size of the BLOCKINFO_BLOCK of my file is "1.345017e+01" percent of the whole file. This is not very readable. The attached patch prints the percentage without scientific notation so we get something bit more readable: Block ID #0 (BLOCKINFO_BLOCK): Num Instances: 1 Total Size: 637b/79.62B/19W % of file: 13.450169 Num

Dear All, Does llvm-bcanalyzer still print the number of instructions in a bitcode file, or has that functionality been removed? -- John T.

On Mar 30, 2009, at 12:08 PM, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > Does llvm-bcanalyzer still print the number of instructions in a > bitcode > file, or has that functionality been removed? Try the "opt -instcount -stats" option, -Chris

Hello all, Does anyone know how to make llvm-bcanalyzer produce detailed output i.e. provides additional information on a per-function basis. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111105/8e7fe152/attachment.html>

On Sep 29, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > Hi, > > Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> writes: >> Maybe you can use the already available "include/llvm/Support/ >> Format.h"? > > Thanks, that simplifies the patch a lot. See the attached patch. It looks like something similar got applied back in r82772 on 9/25. > > Btw,

Here is the bulk of the sanitizing. My residual doubts center around the question whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code in 2.0/2.1. I need a definitive word on this to proceed. My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code (instead of *bit*code). I did not touch those areas, so the attached

Hi all, I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest the .cpp and other files. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified

Hi Joshua, On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 21:34 +0000, Joshua Haberman wrote: > Greetings, > > I am working on a project (unrelated to LLVM) that needed a > bytecode-like format. I found Bitcode and it seems to fit the bill > really nicely. > > I am writing an independent implementation of Bitcode in C (I really > want to keep my runtime pure C). In the process of doing this,

Anyone, can you say what was the reason to rename bytecode? I am still interesting in 2010/9/29 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> Hi Ariel, > As long as I know English the word "bit" is a "small pice", . Why in set of > documentation ir is "bytecode", in other set or llvm source is "bitecode"? > What is the right? Different people call the

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

I just checked in the final bits to switch us over from bytecode to bitcode. Old bytecode files will not work, but I expect this format to be stable going forward with the 2.x series of releases. This new format has a number of advantages. In particular: 1. The files are smaller. 2. The reader takes about 2/3 the memory it did before. 3. The reader is about 1/2 the code size of the old

Chris rewrote the original LLVM bytecode into it's present bitcode form. The newer code is much smaller than the previous form. That would be my guess for why he chose to call it bitcode. Of course, he can say for himself. :-) -bw On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Ariel Feinerman wrote: > Anyone, > > can you say what was the reason to rename bytecode? I am still interesting in >

> Please let me know if you run into any problems. Documentation of the > file format is in the works. The bytecode support code is still in the > tree, but isn't being built. Assuming no major problems, I will remove > the old code tomorrow. I am getting a missing 'lib/Archive' directory when making from an updated CVS. Aaron

Hi Ariel, > can you say what was the reason to rename bytecode? I am still interesting in you forgot to send this to the mailing list, so I have (probably someone there knows better than I). I think the reason is that bitcode is bit-packed, i.e. you can have multiple pieces of information stored in one byte, so byte code was a misnomer. Ciao, Duncan. > > 2010/9/29 Duncan Sands

Hi list, As long as I know English the word "bit" is a "small pice", . Why in set of documentation ir is "bytecode", in other set or llvm source is "bitecode"? What is the right? Different people call the same thing such differently. -- best regards Ariel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: